World Families Forums - The age of R-M343 calculated by Dienekes

ARCHIVAL COPY

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.

There are a couple places where this estimation process goes wrong, but one critical one is in the final step where the number of SNPs is counted. I'm pretty sure I know how you've performed this step, but before I criticize it let's be sure. What are the 30 SNPs you count in R1b, and which sample(s) are they present it?

Of the WTY results, there must be some SNPs that are found that belong to the same subclade of a the tree. We have no way of knowing how many of these occurred within the same generation. As we have seen recently with L21 getting bumped down one level from L459 and Z245, SNP estimates may have the same problems as STRs. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but certainly we have more data about STR mutation rates than SNP mutation rates, so to swear off one and then use the other does not make sense to me.

There are a couple places where this estimation process goes wrong, but one critical one is in the final step where the number of SNPs is counted. I'm pretty sure I know how you've performed this step, but before I criticize it let's be sure. What are the 30 SNPs you count in R1b, and which sample(s) are they present it? VV

Constantine the Great brought in Christianity to the Roman Empire. Is it so hard to believe that this did not happen in other areas?

It is not uncommon for rulers and or groups of people to change religion. This can be seen in the former territories of [Celtic] Galations and Median Emipire to the East; areas that also have elevated R1b when compared to other ydna groups[Grugni et al. 2012,Roewer et al.] especially associated the Lurs and Talysh possible ancient[ Medes][Scythian] connection .

The Median empire once incorporated the ancient city of Arbil. Who's rulers had Hellenistic names [Phillistine connection?] and resided in Jerusalem.

Arbela connected to Medes;

"this man boasted of Median origin, claiming to be “of the line of Cyaxares” (Uvaxštra[hyā] taumāyā, DB 2.81). It would therefore seem that the Sagartians were neighbors of the Parthians in northeast Iran and extended westward as far as Arbela. Ptolemy (6.2.6) locates them in Media, in the region of the Zagros Gates (Ḥolvān)."

Royal house conversion;

"Helena of Adiabene (Hebrew: הלני המלכה‎) was queen of Adiabene and wife of Monobaz I. With her husband she was the mother of Izates II and Monobaz II. She died about 56 CE. Her name and the fact that she was her husband's sister [1] indicate a Hellenistic origin. Helena became a convert to Judaism about the year 30 CE."

Royal family moving to Jerusalem;

"Adiabene (from the Ancient Greek Ἀδιαβηνή, Adiabene, itself derived from Classical Syriac: ܚܕܝܐܒ‎, Ḥaḏy’aḇ or Ḥḏay’aḇ, Old Persian/Armenian: Nodshirakan was an ancient kingdom in Assyria, with its capital at Arbela (modern-day Arbil, Iraq). Its rulers converted to Judaism from Ashurism in the 1st century.[6] Queen Helena of Adiabene (known in Jewish sources as Heleni HaMalka) moved to Jerusalem where she built palaces for herself and her sons, Izates bar Monobaz and Monobaz II at the northern part of the city of David, south of the Temple Mount. According to the Talmud, both Helena and Monbaz donated large funds for the Temple of Jerusalem."

Again, is it so hard to believe that her subjects did not also convert 2000 years ago, in an area that was known to have ancient Iranian tribes like the Medes and R1b?

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone say it was hard to believe that groups of people can convert from one religion to another?

You did not miss out. I'm trying to make a point in the context of "alleged" ancestry and use a paternal caste as a proxy for a much lager group in general. Consider that there can only be one actual paternal line of Cohen, either it is R1b or IJ. You cannot have for example, someone who has "proof of family history"with the "Cohen" last name in and be in distinct family[4] groupings L584+ and L584- or 426-11 and 426 -10, in a strict paternal caste,it does not work that way. Therefore by process of elimination, we must conclude that people of different origins have entered the ydna gene pool just as the studies I have quoted. The correct term would be "alleged".

It should be noted that the term "Ashkenazi" is associated with Medes/Scythians.It is of different lineage from "Cohen"[Aaron] associated with Semitic peoples, it is like mixing apples and oranges.

"In the rabbinic literature, the kingdom of Ashkenaz was first associated with the Scythian region, then later with the Slavic territories"

By replacing the term "alleged" with "Ashkenaz"=[Scythian] to denote a Semitic peoples in origin, you are confusing ancestry of people who have converted, but have a completely different[Non-Semitic] lineage.

You did not miss out. I'm trying to make a point in the context of "alleged" ancestry. Consider that there can only be one actual paternal line of Cohen, either it is R1b or IJ. You cannot have for example, someone who has "proof of family history"with the "Cohen" last name in and be in distinct family[4] groupings L584+ and L584- or 426-11 and 426 -10, in a strict paternal caste,it does not work that way. Therefore by process of elimination, we must conclude that people of different origins have entered the ydna gene pool just as the studies I have quoted. The correct term would be "alleged".

No arguments here. Nothing will ever be proven and we can only make arguments in "likelihoods".

Quote

It should be noted that the term "Ashkenazi" is associated with Medes/Scythians.It is of different lineage from "Cohen"[Aaron] associated with Semitic peoples, it is like mixing apples and oranges.

"In the rabbinic literature, the kingdom of Ashkenaz was first associated with the Scythian region, then later with the Slavic territories"

By replacing the term "alleged" with "Ashkenaz"=[Scythian] to denote a Semitic peoples in origin, you are confusing ancestry.

Again, I seem to be missing something. Has anyone here confused Ashkenzi with Sephardi?

For example str matches in J1's or J2's[IJ] or even R1b's R1a if they exist, and can be found in both groups[Ashkenazi-Sephardi]. That would be a very reasonable and logical assumption, of proving ancestry. Now put a "Cohen" [strict paternal caste]in the mix with proven ancestry, that meets the above criteria, and you have some real solid evidence{587 BCE/70 CE}[IMO].

There are a couple places where this estimation process goes wrong, but one critical one is in the final step where the number of SNPs is counted. I'm pretty sure I know how you've performed this step, but before I criticize it let's be sure. What are the 30 SNPs you count in R1b, and which sample(s) are they present it? VV

Of the WTY results, there must be some SNPs that are found that belong to the same subclade of a the tree. We have no way of knowing how many of these occurred within the same generation. As we have seen recently with L21 getting bumped down one level from L459 and Z245, SNP estimates may have the same problems as STRs. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but certainly we have more data about STR mutation rates than SNP mutation rates, so to swear off one and then use the other does not make sense to me.

I agree with you on this. I'm all for understanding SNP mutations and using them as a kind of molecular clock. However, we know less about this than STRs so its kind of like looking for the greener grass on the other side of the hill.

It makes sense to use multiple SNP counting and STR diversity methods and allow them to cross-check each other until science can refine them into a best (or at least better) method.

Am I wrong on this point about SNP counting? One other concern I have is it is like a single clock. We are using the whole regions of the Y chromosome as a single clock in SNP counting methods.

This is in contrast to STRs. Each STR, since it has a range of values, not just ancestral or derived, is its own clock. The great value of a large number of STRs is they can be averaged together per Ken Nordtvedt's description, as a composite clock. Ken says this is exactly what happens with Carbon-14 dating. Yes, some of the component clocks (single STRs) need to be deselected or better understood, but the more experiments (the more clocks) you have, the better your composite clock can be.

According to C.E. Bosworth:“ The Georgians knew them [the Caucasian Albanians] as Rani, a form taken over in an Arabized form for the early Islamic geographical term al-Rān (pronounced ar-Rān)

Could the region of Arran or modern day Azerbaijan[perhaps a Perisan name?], have been populated by Scythians and Medes, before they were run over by the Turks,[compare R1b in Turkic area in Grugni study with Lurs] ?

Dienekes has an updated post on the Dates of major clades of the Y-chromosome phylogeny.There is a very nice table of Dates of the major clades. Of interest to me are R1 (M343), R1b1 (L278+), R1B1a2a1A1a5 (Z301).

"Overall, it seems to me that with more samples, deep sequencing of the Y (as opposed to the low coverage of the 1000G Project), sequencing of larger regions of the Y, as well as a better estimate of the mutation rate (which can be achieved when many father-son full genomes become available), we are going to have a pretty crisp estimate of the ages of all the branching points of the tree."

There seems to be a plethora of important lineages that coalesce around the Last Glacial Maximum (I, J, O, R1). Perhaps this too was a stressful period for humans resulting in a loss of diversity and the survival of a few lineages from the early arrivals. In the case of haplogroup I which is truly European in distribution it is tempting to imagine that it represents the emergence of the Gravettians, while its sibling J stayed in the Near East, where IJ* chromosomes have recently been found.

It is likable. This I have written in another thread:1You belong to a cluster, for the values I indicated within the 67 markers (at least those already received), but of course you have also other mutations within your family line. One is DYS393=12 (I have this mutation too, but I am R.L23/L150, and this mutation is modal in my haplotype), a mutation very rare, but also rare mutations do happen. Probably your descendants will have this value for thousands of years. But you have also DYS390=25, also rare, DYS385a=12, etc. This demonstrates probably that much time has passed from the ancestor of your cluster and, like my theory says, many other mutations have happened around the modal in fast mutating markers.But these many mutations beyond your cluster could be due also to the age of some of your ancestors: the higher the age, the higher the mutation rate.2Also here I am basing upon single cases examined: many people with many mutations father-son had a father aged. If this happens, this is a single case, which hasn't anythng to do with "an average per time". That individual will have those mutations and will pass them on his descendants: a clade was born.History (and Genetics) is a science based upon the particular and not the general.

The SNP mutation rate in the human genome, according to textbooks of genetics, amounts to 3x10^-8 SNP per 1 base pair per the generation (30 years), that is 1x10^-9 SNP/ 1 bp/ 1 year, that is 0.000,000,001 SNP/1 bp/1 year.

You shouldn’t express the SNP mutation rate as a function of years, because for once the generation time isn’t a fixed number, or we don’t even know if it averages out to 30 or 25, this is even more complicated when we are talking about time frames of over 50,000. Expressing the SNP mutation rate as a function of years makes it seem as if the SNPs depended on how many years have passed by, but in reality, they depend on the number of meioses, however because we cannot measure the SNP mutation as a function of meioses of the Y-chromosome, we have to get a estimate of it as a function of generations, hence expressing it in years, makes me a bit uncomfortable.

But this rate of the mutation were calibrated for the time of 5,000,000 years from the moment of the divergence of the man and the chimpanzee. Now it is known, that it is necessary to calibrate this rate for 6,000,000 years; so is necessary to multiply it through 5/6. The rezult: 0.000,000,00083333 SNP

The Pan-Homo divergences time is still a matter of great debate, and it could very well be anywhere from 5 million to 9 million years old, so that would make the constant change quite a bit. Something else to the effect of what I was saying above, is that modern day Chimpanzees reproduce when they are ~16 years old, so the generational time of 30 years old wouldn't hold any water as we move back to the time prior to the evolution of modern humans.

Moreover it is known, that SNP mutations in Y-chromosome are occurring 4.8 times more quickly than in the entire human genome (geneticists are trying to somehow explain this phenomenon with environmental conditions of meiosis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome). The above rate it is necessary so to multiply through 4.8.In the result we receive 0.000,000,004 SNP/1 base pair/1 year in NRY

That is not known to me, I know that the paternal germ-line mutates faster than the maternal one does, but I didn’t know what the fudge factor was, I thought that number was still being worked on.

Of the WTY results, there must be some SNPs that are found that belong to the same subclade of a the tree. We have no way of knowing how many of these occurred within the same generation. As we have seen recently with L21 getting bumped down one level from L459 and Z245, SNP estimates may have the same problems as STRs. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but certainly we have more data about STR mutation rates than SNP mutation rates, so to swear off one and then use the other does not make sense to me.

I think Dienekes is wrong to totally dismiss STR-based TMRCA estimation. On the other hand, we do have a pretty good idea of SNP mutation rates so I see no barrier to using SNPs as an accurate clock IF the method is well-designed.

I think you forgot L132.1 beneath L1, or L127.2 beneath L128. That would make Z156 about 2500 ybp counting from the bottom. (Interestingly, using Klyosov's STR formula I calculated the age of Z156 was about 2750 ybp.) But I know the proponants of SNP counting want us to count from the top of the tree and assume no SNPs are missing between Z381 and Z156 and that Z156 should be the same age as Z301. I don't understand that reasoning.

......It makes sense to use multiple SNP counting and STR ......Each STR, since it has a range of values, not just ancestral or derived, is its own clock. The great value of a large number of STRs is they can be averaged ......The STRs provide a better composite clock is the point.

DYS472, number of mutations 5 observed mutations / GD = 1DYS425, number of mutations 25 observed mutations / GD = 3DYS436, number of mutations 30 observed mutations / GD = 10DYS426, number of mutations 45 observed mutations / GD = 13DYS490, number of mutations 65 observed mutations / GD = 3DYS454, number of mutations 80 observed mutations / GD = 2DYS455, number of mutations 80 observed mutations / GD = 4DYS578, number of mutations 85 observed mutations / GD = 5DYS641, number of mutations 85. observed mutations / GD = 7DYS590, number of mutations 85 observed mutations / GD = 1 ............., ...................................., ............................................,The experiment showed there is no connection between the number of actual mutations and the number of observed mutations.This table is also unsuitable for calculating the times of Adam.Repeated and back mutations are basically uncountable.In 67 marker haplotype mutations multiple (in the same marker) may be formed at the beginning. And they are uncountable!!! Therefore doubted their usefulness, especially for time over a thousand or several thousand years.Stan

I am saying this from many years, but they don't understand this. Mike has asked infinite times that I explain him my principles:

1) mutations around the modal2) convergence to the modal as time passes3) sometime a mutation goes for the tangent and we have the outliers

All the aDNA, which we have had some STRs, was under of at least a factor of 2.5 as to their calculations, but nothing to do. Not only Nordtvedt, but also Klyosov (I have exchanged many letters with him on the Dienekes' Anthropology Blog) didn't understand this. After he began to use these 22 slowest mutators with better results.

There are only 100 Z156 tests out of the 7000 U106 men tested. When we get to 1000 tests then we will have a better understanding of this group and a lot more SNPs. Do you think that L132.1 and L127.2 are private SNPs?L48 are the most tested group. Do you know which country has the highest divesity?

I think you forgot L132.1 beneath L1, or L127.2 beneath L128. That would make Z156 about 2500 ybp counting from the bottom. (Interestingly, using Klyosov's STR formula I calculated the age of Z156 was about 2750 ybp.) But I know the proponants of SNP counting want us to count from the top of the tree and assume no SNPs are missing between Z381 and Z156 and that Z156 should be the same age as Z301. I don't understand that reasoning.